Washington Post Cancels Off The Record Salons Following Uproar Over Pay To Play Access

Update: The Washington Post has canceled its planned salon at Katharine Weymouth's home based on the uproar over the sale of access to government officials and members of the Washington Post staff. The publisher spoke to her own paper's Howard Kurtz:

"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

Original Post: The Washington Post is responding swiftly to a Politico report that the paper is selling off the record access to administration officials and newspaper editors and reporters for $25,000 and up.

Politico reported Thursday morning on a flier being circulated offering an "underwriting opportunity" for "Washington Post salon," where, for $25,000 per sponsor, organizations and lobbyists can cozy up to administration officials:

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders ...

Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli sent the following email to staffers at 10:33 AM Thursday distancing the newsroom from the event:

Colleagues,

A flyer was distributed this week offering an "underwriting opportunity" for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate.

The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.

We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable.

There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.

The Washington Post made a similar statement to Politico, saying that the flier circulated was merely a draft and that, as presented, it would preclude participation from the Washington Post newsroom:

The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company's vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.

As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this.

We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate.

Get HuffPost Media On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Hillary Fields]

I know the newspaper business is hurting, and hurting bad... but when it comes to journalistic ethics, the Washington Post is supposed to be among the finest institutions in the nation, if not the world. But now, the people who brought us Woodward and Bernstein stand accused of the worst sort of selling out. We're discussing the moral implications of this story on our blog, Everyday Ethics, if anyone wants to follow the debate.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/washington-post-whores-excuse-me-salons-itself-out-for-profit.html

[nellie]

Apparently, a conservative outlet has an easier time getting away with this sort of thing:
http://www.truthout.org/070409C

Sad comment on the media all around.

[mirza]

This story should be on page 1!

From the NYT:

Initially, the salon controversy — we won’t give it a “gate” suffix out of respect for the newspaper that established the term — was explained away as the unfortunate result of an unvetted brochure sent out by an overzealous marketing employee (later identified as Charles Pelton).

But, as The Los Angeles Times pointed out, at least two of the invitations to political participants, Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, came from the personal e-mail address of Ms. Weymouth. Mr. Brauchli insisted that he had not realized the full implications of the events even though Mr. Pelton told The Post’s ombudsman that the plan was “well developed with the newsroom.”

[raker]

I'd bet that this brokering meetings and selling column space to lobbyists is not original. Imagine the dealings during the recent dark ages. How many dying newspapers did the Bush Administration and lobbyists keep afloat by paying to convert them to company newsletters.

[PerfectSense]

So which Obama administration officials agreed to attend the "Salons?"

[VotingPresent]

It does not matter. It's Bush/Cheney's fault.

[moxieme]

I need to really get clear on this. The marketing dept and the Post puts out a piece that advertises "off the record" intimate dinner parties at the home of the publisher for approx quarter-million bucks a pop. It wasn't vetted, BUT, the WH and other elected officials and public servants have signed on. It its true, I have a problem with the WH. The Washington Post has destroyed the modicum of credibility they have left with me.

[JFD8]

An exclusive salon at The Post!
Circulate with the publisher-host
And the powers that be
If you'll pay a huge fee
(And if word ever leaks this is toast!)

News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8

[henrypapillon]

oh, really? what in the H did they expect? duh

[Travis bdboy]

You aren't saying the Post is SCAMMING....these law abiding citizens?.­.....never (smirk)

[ProfessorDuh]

Better change the name to the Washington Prostltute.

[mirza]

Does WaPo have any credibility left? From Woodward and Bernstein to this?

[lmpub]

Hopefully, in this age of struggling newspapers, this is not going to become a fund-raising techinique to save papers from going under. Bring on the citizen journalists!

[Eoin45]

Citizen journalists are fine. I welcome them if they actually practice journalism, but few citizen journalists will have the money to cover the stories that require old fashioned shoe leather reporting. Corruption in cities will go up as newspapers go down. Yes, the WaPo and the Times have set very poor examples over the last decade, but there are hundreds of papers in the U.S. that do serve their readership and thousands of good reporters who hew to high journalistic standards. The net has only been around a very short time and is just as good at spreading bad information as good. The print media have a much better record over the long term. By all means bring on the bloggers and citizen investigators but don't be so quick to condemn the old methods of reporting. In the long haul they've done pretty well.

[ProfessorDuh]

Exactly right.

[buggedabouttheus]

The McClatchy Reporters are very good.

[Chililabombwe]

Arvay,

Since when has The Washington Post been owned by the New York Times?

[arvay]

Sorry, neuron malfunction. NYT owns the Boston Globe.

[arvay]

Remember -- this is the "newspaper" that muffled the story of how the CIA pushed crack in the black community to fund Contra operations.

It's an establishment, neocon infested propaganda tool, and no self-respecting journalist should work there.

And remember, it's owned by the vaunted New York Times.

[Whitley2009]

Who was the wunderkind who thought up this mess? And, are they looking a job?

DO THEY KNOW HOW @#$%^&* STUPID THEY LOOK?

[grf67]

Newsrooms have intgrity? When did that happen? Since Watergate?

[Eoin45]

There are newpapers all over this nation whose newsrooms have integrity. Blanket indictments are childish.